Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT exchange.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Dave wrote:-

>>>We've been down this road before, and the upside-down methodology is
>>>the one that assumes, a priori, that the form most common *within the
>>>limited and specialized corpus that has come down to us,* is the most
>>>fundamental one.

and I said:-

>> If your assertion is correct then the question become unaswerable.
>> To decide whether Hebrew is VSO or SVO requires evidence. If the
>> only evidence we have is deemed an unreliable witness then we are
>> stuck.

And Dave replied:-

>But since that's not what I said, we're unstuck, I guess.

How so? If you can't assume "the form most common *within the limited
and specialized corpus that has come down to us,* is the most
fundamental one.", then how do you decide? It looks to me like you are
discounting the only witness we have because it is specialised and
non-representative.  I'm not questioning your right or reasons for
doing so. No one doubts it is specialised, whether it is not
representative of the spoken language seems to me another unanswerable
question.  But, then, where are you going get the evidence we need to
know the fundamental form is SVO and not VSO? Perhaps we should pose a
different question which may be answered -- within "the limited and
specialized corpus that has come down to us", is Hebrew VSO or SVO?
But looking back at the posts by Dale Wheeler and Liz, perhaps agreement 
can't be reached on that question either.

But since that's not what I said, we're unstuck, I guess.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Dept., Canterbury  University  \_ 
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                                </   New 
Phone   64-3-364-2331, Fax     64-3-364-2332                   /)  Zealand 
Unix Systems Administrator                                    (/'